Talk:CNN/Archive 8

As the lead did not address notable allegations of bias against CNN, I added this sentence:

CNN has faced allegations of political bias, with Democrats more likely to hold favourable views of the network than Republicans.^[1][2]

Despite being sourced, my edit was reverted by @Snooganssnoogans:, whose edit summary reads “the misperceptions of people dont belong in the lead. we dont say that donald trump won the 2020 election in the 2020 election just because these same ppl who think cnn is biased also think he won the election” (Note that Trump’s article lead does point out that he rejected the election outcome). This is despite the fact that the lead is intended to summarise sourced and notable content, which this is, and which facts weren’t addressed in the edit summary. So far as I can see, this is a violation of WP:POVPUSHING. Is anyone willing to comment for or against such a change to the lead? thorpewilliam (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

An article on viewership has no bearing on bias. If you search the archives of this page at the top of this page, you will see that this has been discussed innumerable times. O3000 (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Objective3000: This is not about viewership per se, i.e. whether those of one party affiliation watch the network more than others; it's about favourability or unfavourability toward the network. It is merely to summarise the basis upon which allegations of political bias largely are founded. One can click the hyperlink to read about this more in depth; the same fact as it relates to allegations of partisanship is discussed there. thorpewilliam (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I have read the Pew study many, many times. And yes, the basis of many claims of bias are founded on bias among those making such claims -- as well as misinterpretation of statistics. Please look at the archives of this talk page so we don't have to relitigate this discussion once again. O3000 (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Objective3000: Biased as they may be, that doesn't negate the fact being stated nor their relevance to Wikipedia. The requirement is that the source itself is reliable, which it is. Where am I wrong? thorpewilliam (talk) 05:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

All the article says about CNN is that Democrats were much more likely than Republicans to rate CNN favorably. The article does not say that CNN is biased. O3000 (talk) 12:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Perceptions of bias by parts of the public does not belong in the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: They do in other articles. If such allegations are widespread, they are notable. However, I agree that a more appropriate source could be used to back this, though this one still serves to summarise. Perceptions of bias are important to mention, and you've defended their inclusion elsewhere. thorpewilliam (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The editor "Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d" (who was created on 31 August 2020 and showed immediate familiarity with WP editing) just restored the allegations of bias to the lead. The editor added a report on the "tone" of reporting of various candidates to support the WP:SYNTH claim that CNN is biased against conservatives. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that this type of material belongs in the lead section - it seems like undue weight. It also rather sloppily conflates perceptions by audience segments with actual bias. Perhaps some content in the body would be appropriate, depending on sourcing and wording. Neutrality^talk 22:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

IIRC, the Pew report that this source mentions and has been mentioned many times on this TP, states in its conclusion that the data does not indicate bias. The report is mostly about general mistrust of news organizations. O3000 (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Neutrality: Another source could do the same. My primary concern is that the lead fails to address allegations of political bias, only referring to allegations of false balance. This seems quite unusual. thorpewilliam (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The onus is on you to support through reliable sources any change that you are suggesting. The current text is well cited. O3000 (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Objective3000: Would these suffice, if I were to instate a revised version of my original edit with or without the reference to Pew Research? 1 ("And it’s not only opinion shows. All day long, CNN and MSNBC play up negative stories about the president while Fox plays them down. And, all day long, Fox plays up good news about the president while CNN and MSNBC play it down — or ignore such stories altogether."), 2 ("CNN’s heavily promoted Democratic debate on Tuesday comes on the same day as a second batch of undercover recordings is putting an emphasis on the network’s political bias.") (I will note here that Fox is CNN's arch competitor), 3 ("Among Republicans and those who lean Republican, CNN was considered the most biased news organisation, with a -87 bias rating. Meanwhile, Democrats and those who lean Democratic gave CNN a +29."), 4 ("Results of the content analysis found that both Fox News and CNN contain political bias. Both objectively and subjectively, the networks consistently make negative comments on the members and policies of the other party and have polar opposite opinions of President Donald Trump.") Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 09:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Again, the primary intent is to discuss allegations of bias, which are themselves important, less so whether or not they're true. thorpewilliam (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The first link is an opinion piece, which is unsuitable for statements of fact. The second is to Fox News, which isn't widely accepted as a reliable source for US politics. The third is just referencing more opinion polling. The fourth is a dissertation, which isn't generally considered a good source, especially not for contentious claims; they generally lack the level of peer review accorded to actual papers. None of the sources you're citing indicate that the "allegations of bias" you're trying to put in the lead are important. And all the sources you're citing only mention CNN in passing, often as a point of comparison to Fox. This is important because the polling you're citing indicates that the American right generally distrusts all news sources except Fox or a small bubble of more fringe-y alternatives (The big difference is that while no other source comes close to rivaling Fox News’ appeal to Republicans, a number of sources other than CNN are also highly trusted and frequently used by Democrats); this means that the fact that they take issue with CNN isn't particularly noteworthy or important, since they take issue with any news source that doesn't toe their ideological line. In other words, it's a story about the right-wing media landscape and the extremely narrow window of what's acceptable within it, not a story about CNN specifically. --Aquillion (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Since when was Fox News not considered a reliable source? Anyways, points taken. thorpewilliam (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Aquillion:Also, on the topic of opinion articles, every single source referenced regarding CNN's allegations of false balance goes to an opinion or commentary article. thorpewilliam (talk) 04:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to CNN has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

If you are going to call Fox news a conservative news agency you need to call CNN a liberal or left wing news agency 2600:1700:DFE1:6E90:9973:C687:3C9F:302E (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done This has already been discussed. Also - WP:WHATABOUT.--Renat (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

What is wrong with the echo chamber Orwellian revisionists? From CNN's very own web site: https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/07/media/cnn-settles-lawsuit-viral-video/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/21/us/cnn-sandmann-lawsuit/index.html

..and Stalin erased people from photos too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.33.183 (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Italic text

This edit request to CNN has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Second to last paragraph on intro page (talks about ratings, rating from 2019, needs to be updated with current ratings. Here's a link to their current https://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2020/12/02/cnn-smashes-ratings-records-in-november-has-its-most-watched-month-ever/ Bec23023 (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also, preferably with a secondary source. The source cited its own press release with source of the figures not declared. Neilsen? or what other organisation had made the ratings? – robertsky (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I reverted Cstiker05's first addition relating to bias in the lead, as it did not cite any reliable source and was based on the idea that articles on similar topics must describe them in similar (or balanced) ways. That is not the case. We write about subjects based on the reliable sourcing for that subject, not other subjects. This subsequent edit seems based on the same reasoning, adding related content likewise based on insufficient sources (see WP:RSP for entries on NY Post and Fox on politics). Not reverting due to restrictions on this page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

CNN officially lists the headquarters of CNN as CNN Center in Atlanta, Georgia. This is being changed on this and other articles to 10 Hudson Yards, New York City. While New York does host a CNN bureau (as does Washington and numerous other cities throughout the US and the world), this is not where CNN is headquartered. I have reverted this article back to Atlanta and included three citations.

Similarly, a section was included to imply that all major broadcasting was out of New York, and that Atlanta did nothing but weekend broadcasting. This was cited, however, the citations were contradictory to the information published in the Wikipedia article. Moreover, the section appeared to only have been inserted to contradict the fact that CNN is in fact headquartered in Atlanta.

I feel like since the controversies of other news channels/publications are connected to their respective articles, we should do that to this article. Chimichangazzz (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Chimichangazzz

There was no consensus to remove this section in the first place, not even a discussion. After two reverts of this were reverted, somehow a consensus is now required to re-include this? Seriously @Objective3000? Mellk (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I invite you to reintroduce a controversy section. The bias of the articles on this website are incredible. Fox News’s article is filled with multiple sections detailing its controversies whereas this article has none. The article CNN controversies isn’t even linked here anymore, most likely to reduce visibility. Sanger is 100% correct in his feelings about this website. CatcherStorm ^talk 15:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I invite you to show us what you want to add before you add it, because the article CNN is currently subject to discretionary sanctions. All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). Fox News article — WP:WHATABOUTX.--Renat (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I would normally suggest with the seemingly simplest and most logical answer to your question and say just add the CNN controversies page either linked or in full section - but I just read through it. It's absolutely littered with things like " in 2011 CNN anchor on this date burned a Republican with a mildly aggressive joke." Or "in 201 Trump made a false, completely unfounded claim that has definitely been proven to be a 100% made up CONSPIRACY THEORY fact checked by independent upstanding organizations who have no proven connection to CNN like WaPo or Politifact."

I mean seriously guys. Come on. You even still have claims in these articles that the Russian collusion hoax was still legitimate. Actually, as of today President Trump has fully unsealed the FBI investigations that provably show that the Steele Dossier was in fact a collusion by the Obama admin and Hillary Clinton to take the public's attention off of her deleted Emails scandal. It's all in the declassified investigation reports.

Other than that, we can just cut right to the chase and thru the BS "my team vs your team" nonsense and be willing to call out when your political party makes a mistake or commits a scandal. 2020 alone could fill 5 pages of CNN 'alleged scandals' - from the berating of Trump literally around the clock, to the footage obtained by Project Veritas listening to their weekly meetings where they've laid out plots to swing public perception to the side of the democrats, to constantly labeling the race riots of 2020 which caused over $2 Billion in damage and over 24 (up to 48 ) deaths, as "mostly peaceful" all while the mayhem unfolded on live tv. You could also include the sexist and racist comments by Don Lemon that falsely claimed that white men are the most dangerous demographic in the country.

I can go into detail with a slew of additional examples in the event you are actually interested in introducing a fair and balanced reporting of the party with who's public declarations most align with the staff of this and the other major big tech and information gathering websites and even the ones with opinions that yourselves and the other sites despise. I for one would be interested in the complete picture for once, which for the past 5 years has been brutally obstructed by biasness and partisanship.

Thanks. I cautiously and perhaps naively look forward to an effort to eliminate the gross imbalances being displayed. Yashamaga (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:Notaforum aka keep the ranting to a miniumum to maximize productivity. With that out of the way, there should be consistency in how similar articles are presented to readers. Msnbc, fox news and cnn have separate controversy articles yet only one does not retain an article section, instead hiding it as a link in a Trump sub-section. Perhaps some harmonization would go a long way to reducing perceived bias. Slywriter (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to CNN has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add 'American Liberal' (with link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States)

to the description of CNN as a news network in the first sentence, after the first use of word 'multinational', to fit the same pattern across Wikipedia used for sites like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Examiner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News

Additionally, please add a paragraph regarding bias, similar to:

"Fox News has been described as practicing biased reporting in favor of the Republican Party, its politicians, and conservative causes while portraying the Democratic Party in a negative light.[19][20][21][22] Critics have cited the channel as detrimental to the integrity of news overall.[23][24] Fox News' official position is that news reporting operates independently of its opinion and commentary programming, and have denied bias in news reporting, although former employees have stated that Fox ordered them to "slant the news in favor of conservatives".[25] During the presidency of Donald Trump, observers said there is a pronounced tendency of the Fox News Channel to serve as a "mouthpiece" for the administration, providing "propaganda" and a "feedback loop" for Trump, with scholars suggesting that the channel came to resemble a form of state TV.[26][27]"

for parity regarding the page, in order to establish a clear picture of the media outlet (just as the paragraph above provides a clear picture of Fox). Wikipedia should be an arbiter of truth above all else, which includes attempting to remove lies of omission or disingenuous description of a given topic. It is a fact that CNN sides with the political opinions held to much greater degrees (from a policy standpoint) within the Democratic party of the United States, particular those who are deemed 'progressives'. It is important that we provide clarity to all readers of Wikipedia, as it should act as an Encyclopedia providing clarity across the Internet.

Thank you for your consideration. 2601:18D:8D80:9B90:EDFF:3F63:A9D2:AD8C (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done There is no "pattern" for this. Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.--Renat (talk) 21:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to CNN has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Deceptively edited videos and disinformation 216.105.212.252 (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to CNN has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There is no way anyone would consider CNN’s programming to be “non-partisan”. It’s absurd!! I request that any statement even resembling that be removed. 2600:1700:3650:9320:3893:C04D:6A57:9A62 (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to CNN has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2601:580:4200:71D0:65D2:348A:CC78:1E4B (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to CNN has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Can someone please change the line "before entering the building and destroying portions of the interior" to something else? The truth is, the furthest any protester went was probably not even halfway through the lobby! Nothing inside was destroyed. Can you please change this overdue thing? Thanks2603:7080:BB0E:FFE9:FD40:CD7E:C079:DAB2 (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC) 2603:7080:BB0E:FFE9:FD40:CD7E:C079:DAB2 (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

 Question: What should that line be changed to? You'll need to provide a reliable source supporting your claim as well. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 22:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to CNN has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

ReliableDave (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The sentence should be changed from "and for its efforts to be nonpartisan," to "and for its efforts to be partisan"[1][2][3][4]

[1] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9467611/CNN-technical-director-makes-embarrassing-admission-getting-catfished-Tinder.html
[2] https://nypost.com/2021/04/13/cnns-charlie-chester-says-network-peddled-anti-trump-propaganda/
[3] https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14645965/ccn-staffer-admits-propaganda-project-veritas/
[4] https://www.newsweek.com/james-okeefe-expand-his-war-cnn-lawsuits-more-video-1583722

 Not done: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Why not?

@ReliableDave: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. There is an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. The sources in your edit request are unreliable for the statement in your request. And sign your posts, please.--Renat 16:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

You can't be serious. Newsweek and NY Post aren't reliable? How convenient. How about a literal video of the technical director admitting as much plus recorded conference calls of the 9 am Zucker meetings? How isn't there a Controversy section in this article with the ExposeCNN claims that are completely valid and a serious concern for obvious bias? It would be up there if it had happened to Fox News(and rightfully so, I'd write it up myself). CNN is literal propaganda for fuck sake , their own technical director even says so. They don't report the news, they decide what it is. He literally says they dropped the Asian hate stuff because their investigations found that it was mostly black people and they "support the BLM movement". CNN should definitely be removed from reliable sources when it comes to politics as well, everything right-leaning has been. Fair is fair. Saying Fox News isn't reliable for politics but CNN is, is literally insane. You guys should call yourselves The Ministry of Truth. The people running this site are disgusting human beings with zero integrity but what else is new. Truth matters, not your personal opinions and political biases. Wikipedia is turning into a Stalin-like, authoritarian, hellhole that lacks anything considered close to integrity, neutrality, and most importantly the truth. I hope you know that everyone is becoming keen on your blatant attacks on truth in order to push your own personal and political agendas, it's gross.

Sawyermade (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

See WP:VERITAS and WP:NYPOST. Newsweek may be a reliable source, but James O'Keefe is not. Just plain Bill (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Is there a reason apart from him not aligning to your ideas? The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The reason why I say this is because conducting an illegal sting does not imply the falsity of a statement. A statement's falsity is proven by evidence against its veracity. The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Project Veritas has been shown to doctor videos in misleading ways. soibangla (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The Unique One v2.0, I find it fascinating that you used Conservapedia as a source. soibangla (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you state why that's not a source? Are only liberal sources reliable? Can I get evidence for that? The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

And, oh my God! You just made my point! I was stating that many right-leaning sources state that CNN is liberal. That's exactly what you're also saying! The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

And also, is Washington Post conservative?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/21/lets-rank-the-media-from-liberal-to-conservative-based-on-their-audiences/ The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Here's evidence that the Washington Post leans left:

https://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=637508&p=4462444 The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, Conservapedia is "a source," alright. Except it's trash. soibangla (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:RSP, post-2013 Newsweek is a dubious source. It is a shadow of its former credibility. soibangla (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The title means it all. Although my previous edit meant that CNN is left-leaning (which it is, according to several reliable sources that are mentioned in this edit), my present edit states that a number of sources consider CNN to be left-leaning. This is not a falsity since there are three reliable sources for this information. The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

You did not provide reliable sources. soibangla (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

There were five sources. Can you please state how they are not reliable?! Removing cited information is a clear abuse of opportunity. The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

And one of them was Conservapedia. haha soibangla (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

You want to pick one out of five. How about the Washington Post? The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I think even you'd agree silently that CNN leans left from its coverage of right-leaning individuals and parties over the last few years. I am ashamed that people like you don't want to accept the truth. People look up to Wikipedia for the truth and not for your opinions. Wikipedia acclaim the Washington Post as a reliable source and hence what it says is reliable. Why don't you permit that from being published?! The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The Pew/WaPo story refers to audiences, not the sources themselves. I suggest you cease making unfounded assertions about me.soibangla (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

"The Pew/WaPo story refers..."

Exactly. That's exactly what my edit says as well. You have to learn to read what the edit was. The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

As it has been stated before; nobody cares. "Reality has a well-known liberal bias", so it makes sense to note the outliers like Fox News or OANN. CNN, WPost, etc...are (and sorry if this bursts bubbles) normal. We don't need to qualify normal with descriptors. ValarianB (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Fox News is reportedly way less rightist than OANN. It's interesting how you equated the two of them. The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The fact is that Pew and WaPo state the liberal inclination of the audience of CNN. The editors' consensus is that the readers of the article should not be made aware of this fact. This is not objective editing! Please remove your own biases when editing articles on Wikipedia! The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

You are criticizing others' reading skills above, but you have yet to address the actual reasons for being removed. Just repeating "stop censoring Important Facts!" isn't persuasive because a fact being true isn't the only criterion for including in an article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

It actually is an important fact since there is not a single conservative news channel that is not mentioned to be so while several left-leaning and leftist ones are not mentioned to be so. It is very important and there is all the more reason to make the public aware of the same. The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Please cite reliable sources characterizing CNN, rather than its audience, as liberal. soibangla (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, CNN audience and CNN are not the same thing. And also, just because something isn't right-wing doesn't make it necessarily left leaning. There's the middle ground that's based on facts and science. For example, telling people COVID is real doesn't make you liberal, simply because it's against what some right wing conspirators believe. It's just facts. So, you need something more solid to support your argument. — Starforce¹³ 16:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't asked for or made an edit that says CNN is liberal. I myself understand the values of being centrist and am not an ultra-rightist myself. But, why are the other editors so adamant that we shouldn't mention the liberal nature of the audience? In fact, when juxtaposed with the fact that CNN provides a balance (or a false balance, as the post says), it only gives a positive image of being more centrist to the leftist community. The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The presumed audience political leaning has no relevance to the article. Otherwise, we might as well include everything that has ever been written about CNN, its audience or even staff here.— Starforce¹³ 18:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

I was the one that was editing without warning a couple months ago. Sorry, but I just don’t understand. Wikipedia claims to be neutral. But I think this is obviously biased. I am with @The Unique One v2.0: on this kind of stuff.

The first pictures show CNN is way more important to Wikipedia. WHY? The second pictures show the actual articles. You say you are neutral and not supposed to have a biased view: Neutral Point of View and [Pillars]. If you were neutral you would at least mention CNN was liberal once. I don’t think you mention it at all. Whereas Newsmax is conservative, trump loving, and other stuff you put in there. I mean it is true, but again put liberal and Biden loving in CNN then. You do have a CNN Controversies page, but you made it separate, I think so its not in the main article. Either merge or put some of that in the main article to be neutral then. You also automatically say Newsmax has false accusations and conspiracy theories. This goes with all the other articles that apply. You should put liberal in Google and all those big companies. But especially these news articles. This is not okay.

Do you know it’s biased and are not listening to people because you don’t want it changed or are you just impulsive.

Who else is with me? Does this make sense? Anston06 (talk) 09:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

This is exactly what I said. I am totally fine if you keep out political adjectives from both CNN and Fox News. But, keeping it away from CNN and keeping it for all (show me one that isn't marked 'conservative') conservative news channels is exactly against the spirit of Wikipedia's neutrality.

It doesn't matter whether you are a liberal or a conservative. I myself am not a Trump-supporter; I am a morally center-rightist and fiscally center-leftist person. But that doesn't matter when you are editing stuff on Wikipedia. Things have to be fair and equal for both sides of the table. The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 11:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The "we" you refer to are reliable secondary sources. If you can provide such sources here to characterize CNN as liberal and Biden-supporting, by all means do so. There are seven sources characterizing Newsmax as conservative, four sources characterizing Chris Ruddy as a Trump confidant, and he has said "We have an editorial policy of being supportive of [Trump] and his policies." Is there a comparable statement by Jeff Zucker? Also, there is a notable tendency of conservative media and those who consume them to characterize "the other guys" who aren't similarly aligned to therefore be liberal, as if there cannot be a vast middle. In recent years there has been an explosion of conservative media outlets that consistently, overtly and shamelessly traffic in lies and conspiracy theories. CNN? Not so much. soibangla (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Here's one of the best non-partisan sources you can ever get on political bias of the media: Ad Fontes Media

https://www.adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/

It accurately considers AP and Reuters to be unbiased. It also accurately considers CNN to be left-leaning and Fox News to be right-leaning. The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I recommend you WP:BEBOLD and characterize CNN as "liberal" or "left-leaning" in the lead sentence with that source and see if it is challenged in WP:BRD. Let's settle this for once and for all. soibangla (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. @Soibangla: I will definetely do so! Anston06 (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Didn't that happen before? I did it and folks reverted it with no discussion. I later did it in the third paragraph and faced the same outcome. I had given reliable sources, not ones like Conservopedia. And yet, it was taken down. I don't see why that won't happen again but let's hope for the best anyway. The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Which sources did you use? If they were low-quality, or just the one you cite above, removal would likely be warranted. In a case like this, I would argue that a preponderance of reliable sources would be necessary. There are seven for Newsmax. soibangla (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

[ec] Ad Fontes Media is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. See its entry in WP:RSP. It will be challenged and removed, leaving us right back here talking about how "Other Stuff Exists" is weak sauce for Wikipedia purposes.

Furthermore, it puts Fox News in the "hyper-partisan right" column, along with the likes of Newsmax, OAN, PragerU, and Breitbart. To say that "It also accurately considers CNN to be left-leaning and Fox News to be right-leaning" is a false equivalence, obvious to anyone looking at the chart, and carries an aroma of rhetorical shenanigans. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not about sourcing, sourcing has never been the issue here; it is about reality. The majority of actual, legitimate media, i.e. organizations with a reputable history for fact-checking & accuracy fall to the more liberal, open and yes, left-leaning side of the political spectrum. The Wikipedia does not need to take extra steps to describe CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and others as "liberal" and similar, we already know this, as it is baseline normality in media.

Fox News, OANN, and a handful of other fringe media are the outliers, thus they are characterized as "conservative", "far-right", etc...to denote their unusualness within the larger media realm. The Wikipedia notes that Barack Obama was a black president. The Wikipedia does not note that Millard Fillmore was a white president. ValarianB (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Many people, and the media outlets they consume, do not approach issues with the scientific method to arrive at conclusions. Instead, they begin with beliefs they assume as truth, and all their analysis flows from those root beliefs. And when good journalists consistently reach conclusions with the scientific method that happen to align with one political party's policy positions rather than another party's policy positions, they are perceived by some as "liberal." Many people appear to have not been paying attention when the scientific method began to be taught to them in — what, 4th grade? soibangla (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to CNN has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Can I add an edit saying that CNN is a liberal news network channel because other news channels as fox news etc. are labeled conservative channels except for the ones that are liberal. CB30303 (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

No, you may not. To repeat what I stated in an earlier discussion on the same subject, Fox News, OANN, and a handful of other fringe media are the outliers, thus they are characterized as "conservative", "far-right", etc...to denote their unusualness within the larger media realm. The Wikipedia notes that Barack Obama was a black president. The Wikipedia does not note that Millard Fillmore was a white president. ValarianB (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

You sure can — if you have reliable sources saying they are. soibangla (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing has never really been the issue here. ValarianB (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, Mr. CB30303, you created your account and then 3 minutes later came to make this edit request as your very first edit. Curious timing, as there is a user named @Chimichangazzz: who is trying to make the same type of edit, and is being rebuffed. What attracted to you come to this article at this moment? Is there perhaps a web forum, social media thread, etc...? ValarianB (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

This is WP:SNOWBALL. It's been brought up so many times by the same few people and their potential sock puppets and the consensus has been clear from all the other discussion. It's time to accept the existing consensus and move on. It beats the point of consensus (and honestly, it's kind of disrespectful to other editors' time) to keep bringing up the same thing without any significant changes in the subject.— Starforce¹³ 19:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The intro of this article is very self-aggrandizing and does not show NPOV. The second paragraph currently reads as:

"As of September 2018, CNN has 90.1 million television households as subscribers (97.7% of households with cable) in the United States.[12] In 2019, CNN ranked third in viewership among cable news networks, behind Fox News and MSNBC, averaging 972,000 viewers.[13] CNN ranks 14th among all basic cable networks.[14][15]"

I recommend that this information should be placed in a chart under a "Historical Viewership" section. Viewership and membership change constantly and a snapshot of CNNs high ratings/viewership should not define what CNN is in the intro of this page. One example of changes in viewership number is in the year 2021, CNN took a nosedive in viewership which has been notable after the presidential election of the year prior.12.227.66.34 (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

So...update it to the 2021 numbers. ValarianB (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

....You seem to forget that the article is semi protected. Also, I am not good at fancy edits so that is why this has been brought up for discussion. This edit is here until an good wiki editor can implement the change.

The change should not not just update the numbers but would be beneficially to show a yearly chart to show readers full context of CNNs popularity over time.12.227.66.34 (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

It appears that the criticism section experienced its final death here. I am aware of the singular link in the lead to the CNN controversies page. Pretty glaring to compare this article with other articles, like Washington Post or MSNBC or ESPECIALLY Fox News where a great deal, if not the majority of the article focuses on criticisms and controversy. Surely there has been enough controversy and criticism of CNN to warrant a stub-like section that includes the lead from CNN controversies, and a link to it, as I have seen commonly on other articles. Currently it appears that CNN is without DUE criticism! Perhaps we can generalize enough to actually produce a decent general section but I would endorse a simple "Criticism" section with a link for the time being. SmolBrane (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

We don't automatically structure articles on similar topics the same way; and in general, I still hold that criticism sections are not a useful way to organize material. WP:CORG is for when the controversies are a major part of the subject; that doesn't seem to be the case here - the section you added had a smattering of individual reports (some of which, like the Nation, the Erik Wemple opinion piece, the Guardian piece, and the Huffington Post piece are WP:PRIMARY sources of criticism), not something supporting the section's statement that it has been broadly criticized or the WP:CORG requirement for secondary coverage (which, even then, only may justify it; the arguments against criticism sections still stand and have to be weighed against the sourcing and their significance.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I'm not a huge fan of a large controversies section, but controversies most broadly defined has such a significant DUEness that it requires a section on this page. Controversies are a normative subject for media companies, especially large and prolific ones like CNN. The Controversies section operates as a summary of the spinoff article, and I have structured it as such. Politics/international issues/comments by their staff is a nice rough way to do it based on the structure of CNN controversies. Perhaps that could be improved. I have included “specific instances” to help readers understand that this is not typically a general criticism/controversy.

It's also important to include a controversies section as it includes the issue in the ToC which allows readers to quickly navigate to content, like the significant controversies that CNN has been involved in. It is VERY abnormal to have a 86kB article on Controversies mentioned in the lead without a related section in the body.

The Nation's article doesn't just feature criticism by the author, it mentions criticism by many people, although I am not committed to it remaining if it is that unsuitable. I have replaced the Wemple piece with a non-opinion article regarding the Brazile controversy. I have replaced both the Guardian and Huffington Post articles with non-opinion reliable sources.

Please feel free to change the structure but do not delete this section. It is DUE to remain. I also think it could be moved further down the article. SmolBrane (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I reverted a re-addition to the section. Generally, there should be consensus before challenged material is re-added to an article. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

There never was consensus to remove this section, please cite a diff/talk section if you can. A review of the article history indicates that the last talk page discussion before removal is on Archive 8. A controversies section first appeared on this article in 2005, it was removed for some period in 2006, was reinserted before the end of 2006 and remained in some form until removal recently in 2020. The relative significance of the issue and the lack of consensus to remove would indicate that removal constitutes the challenge. Any comments on DUEness, which seems extraordinary here? This section's absence on this article when it appears on so many other media company's articles is a severe NPOV issue that is also going unacknowledged here. SmolBrane (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Here's a better timeline of what actually happened. Aquillion deleted the section hereRemoval was disputed hereRemoved againDisputed againRemoved again. (Allegation of the need for consensus to include starts with this edit)

From Talk:consensus to remove acknowledged as absentconsensus to remove acknowledged again as absent

There has been a sleight of hand here, where consensus to remove was never established, and has since been erroneously used to omit this content. SmolBrane (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

This is very nitpicky, but in the picture caption of Donald Trump at a CNN interview in 2016, shouldn’t it be “Donald Trump interviews with CNN and Voice of America? Donald Trump is doing something, so shouldn’t interview be a verb? Sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.196.182.116 (talk) 02:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the word is functioning as a noun here. We could say "A Donald Trump interview" but the current phrasing is ok. SmolBrane (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to CNN has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

PLEASE ADD A , “Controversies,” or similar section Consider a, “Controversies,” section, or link to ethics in media. Pretty much all cable programming, be it Fox, CNN, MSNBC, or what have you is, “opinion programming,” by virtue of canted eyebrow, and delivery.

Conflict of interest: CNN made the choice not to insist that Chris Cuomo, a marquee product, take a leave of absence during his brother, the Governor’s, sex scandal.

“The next year, as Andrew Cuomo was facing an increasing number of sexual harassment accusations, Chris Cuomo recused himself from reporting on the scandal, leaving a prime-time hole in CNN’s coverage of what was turning out to be a national news story.” NYT 12/5/2021

Bauder, David (March 1, 2021). "CNN's Chris Cuomo says he 'obviously' can't cover brother". Associated Press. Retrieved March 1, 2021. 2601:19C:4800:31D0:16E:2E85:C311:907 (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC) 2601:19C:4800:31D0:16E:2E85:C311:907 (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See discussion above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, really. Chris did the right thing by recusing himself from that topic, hence no violation of COI. -- Valjean (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)